{"id":97164,"date":"2008-07-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008"},"modified":"2016-09-11T05:55:45","modified_gmt":"2016-09-11T00:25:45","slug":"parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Parshottam vs Unknown on 29 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Parshottam vs Unknown on 29 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/132\/1988\t 6\/ 6\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 132 of 1988\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 447 of 1988\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n \n \n=================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=================================================\n\n\n \n\nPARSHOTTAM\nRAMA - Appellant\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 1 - Opponents\n \n\n=================================================\n \nAppearance : In CR.A: 132 of 1998 \nMR\nAD SHAH for Appellant :  \nMR. MAULIK NANAVATI, LD. APP for Opponent\n: 1, \nNOTICE SERVED for Opponent : 2,\n \n\nAppearance:\nIn CR.A. 447 of 1998\n \n\nMR\n MAULIK NANAVATI, LD. APP for Appellant\n \n\nNOTICE\nSERVED for Opponent No. 2 & 4\n \n\nMR\nAD SHAH for Opponent No.3\n \n\nNOTICE\nSERVED for Opponent No.1 by bailable warrant.\n \n\n=================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 29\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
:\n<\/p>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)<\/p>\n
Both
\n\tthe appeals arise out of the judgment & order  dated 8th
\n\tMarch 1988 passed by learned Addl. City Sessions Judge,Ahmedabad in
\n\tSessions Case No. 5 of 1987 by which the original accused No.3
\n\tParshottam Rame came to be sentenced for the offence punishable
\n\tunder section 304 Part-1 of I.P. Code, who  preferred Criminal
\n\tAppeal No. 132 of 1988. Feeling aggrived by the said judgment the
\n\tState had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 1988 against all the
\n\toriginal accused persons. However at the time of admission of the
\n\tappeal, learned APP had not pressed the State appeal againt the
\n\toriginal accused No.5  Lallu Lala Chavda Vaghri.\n<\/p>\n
\tBrief case of the
\n\tprosecution is that complainant Babubhai,  deceased Vinodbhai and
\n\tDevjibhai were the three brothers.  They were residing in a hut of
\n\tthe chawl known as ?SParvatibai Chawl??, situated near Adwait
\n\tAshram and opposite to Shankar Bhuvan of Shahpur. Devjibhai and
\n\tVinodbhai have got their shop near Adwait Ashram.  The original
\n\taccused no.1 to 4 are brothers, while accused no.5 Lallubhai is
\n\ttheir uncle. The case of the prosection  is that accused no.1, Amrut
\n\tRama and accused no.3 Parshottam Rama are the pick-pockerts and
\n\tpolice used to arrest both of them quite often, who suspected that
\n\tthe complainant and his brothers were working as informants of the
\n\tpolice.  That on 21\/10\/1986  at about 8.30 p.m. Complainant
\n\tBabubhai, his deceased brother Vinodbhai and their neighbours
\n\tSureshbhai Alabhai and Natvarbhai Jivabhai had gone to the Pan-Bidi
\n\tcabin known as ?SGandhi Bridge Pan House?? for eating pan and
\n\tafter ordering pan they were talking casually. At that time accused
\n\tno.3 Parshottam came there along with his three brothers i.e.
\n\taccused nos 1,2 and 4.  According to the prosecution case accused
\n\tno.3 Parshottam inflictd a gupti blow on the left side chest of
\n\tVinodbhai. Rest of the accused caught hold of deceased Vinodbhai and
\n\tagain accused no.3 inflicted two to three more gupti blows to
\n\tVinodbhai. Complainant and his companions raised shouts and hence
\n\taccused no. 1 to 4 ran away. Thereafter injured Vinodbhai was
\n\tshifted to V.S. Hospital, and on examination  he was found dead.
\n\tThe case was registered  and subsequently the accused were arrested.
\n\t It is the case of the prosection that accused no.5 Lallubhai, who
\n\tis uncle of the accused gave shelter to all the accused knowing full
\n\twell that they had committed murder of Vinodbhai.  On completion of
\n\tthe investigation police filed charge sheet before the learned
\n\tMetropolitan Magistrate for the offences punishable under sections
\n\t302, 201, 212 and 34 of I.P. Code and also for offence punishable
\n\tunder section 135 (1) of Bombay Police Act. Thereafter the case was
\n\tcommitted to the Court of Sessions where it was numbered as Sessions
\n\tCase No. 5 of 1987. After completion of the trial, Learned Addl.
\n\tSessions Judge, Ahmedad, vide judgment & order dated 8th
\n\tMarch 1988 acquitted accused no.1,2,4 and 5 on the ground of
\n\tprossecution’s failure to prove case agaisnt them, however convicted
\n\taccused no.3 Parshottam Rama for offence under Section 304 Part-I of
\n\tI.P. Code.\n<\/p>\n
Being
\n\taggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment of acquittal of
\n\taccused no. 1,2, 4 and 5 appellant State has preferred Criminal
\n\tAppeal No. 447 of 1988; while the accused no.3 who was convicted for
\n\toffence under section 304-Part-1 by the judgment of learned Addl.
\n\tSessions Judge, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 1988.  At the
\n\ttime of admission of appeals, State has not pressed appeal against
\n\taccused no.5 and hence Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 1998 now remains
\n\tto be decided only against accused no. 1,2 and 4 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tcounsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 1998 has
\n\tassailed the judgment of conviction of accused no.3 on the grounds
\n\tthat it is difficult to place reliance upon the testimony of the
\n\tcomplainant’s side that accused no.3 inflicted know (gupti) blow on
\n\tthe chest of the deceased Vinodbhai.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t That the learned
\n\t\tJudge, while examing the prosecution case as to the motive for
\n\t\tacused no.1 to 4 to commmit murder, clearly recorded a finding that
\n\t\tthe evidence regarding motive agaist the accused no.1 to 4 is quite
\n\t\tweak.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t Learned Judge also
\n\t\tfound in respect to the so called discovery of kife that the said
\n\t\tevidence was not sufficient to connect the accused no.3 with the
\n\t\tcrime.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t That, Learned Judge
\n\t\tseriously erred in recording the finding of guilt of accused no.3,
\n\t\tmore particularly when it was observed that ?S from the detailed
\n\t\tdiscussions of the prosecution eivdence it must be said without
\n\t\tany hesitation that the prosecution has not been able to prove
\n\t\tbeyond any reasonable doubt that the accused no.3 is guilt of the
\n\t\toffence of murder.?S However learned Judge, while considering the
\n\t\tdefence of the accused no.3 that he had inflicted one  knife blow
\n\t\tto deceased in exercise of right of private defence during the
\n\t\tstatement recorded under section 313 I.P. Code, proceeded to
\n\t\texamine the justification of causing such injury by giving knife
\n\t\tblow.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t Shri Shah, learned
\n\t\tcounsel  has further argued that the learned trial Judge while
\n\t\tconsidering statement of accused no.3 recorded under section 313,
\n\t\tproceeded to observe that the accused no.3 had no such apprehension
\n\t\tat the stage when he inflicted vital blow on the chest of the
\n\t\tdeceased Vinodbhai.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t Learned trial Judge
\n\t\tseriously erred in not accepting the opinon of Dr. Parikh who had
\n\t\tperformed the post mortem and came to the conclusion that the
\n\t\tinjuries sustained by the deceased were all possible during the
\n\t\tcourse of struggle to snatch away the knife. The medical evidence
\n\t\tcompletely substantiate the case of defence and  the statement of
\n\t\taccused no.3 about the circumstances in which he caused injury on
\n\t\tthe deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tShri Shah therefore
\n\t\tsubmitted that the judgment of conviction passed against accused
\n\t\tno.3 may be  quashed & set aside.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tAPP Shri. Nanavati has urged that the trial Court has accepted the
\n\tstory of the prosecution that the accused no.3 was the author of the
\n\tinjury inflicted. In that light when there was only  one knife
\n\tinjury it can not be said that the deceased was not the aggressor.
\n\tIn that background right of private defence could not be given to
\n\tthe accused. In any case the appeal of the accused where in he has
\n\tchallenged his conviction under section 304 Part-I is not liable to
\n\tsustain because it is clearly established that the accused was the
\n\tauthor of the injury.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for
\n\tthe accused supported the findings of the trial Court and urged that
\n\tbenefit of right of private defence has rightly been given on the
\n\tpoint of sentence. In his appeal he stressed that about 1 \u00bd
\n\tyears of confinement has been suffered by the accused. At such a
\n\tdistance of time, he may not be sent again to jail since  the
\n\tinjuries are found to be in the right of private defence.\n<\/p>\n
We
\n\thave heard the learned counsels and have given our thoughtful
\n\tconsideration to the facts obtaining on record.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tcase as stated clearly show that it was not a case of
\n\tpre-meditation. When two parties enter into a quarrel and one has
\n\tthe worse of it, it follow that neither of the party can be given
\n\tadvantage of the situation.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tevidence led by the prosecution has been  held to be untrustworthy.
\n\tBoth the parties  entered into a fight on Panshop a common meeting
\n\tground ?  not a fighting ground. The parties were not going to a
\n\tpoint of no return. In fact it was a situation where temper rose on
\n\tthe spur of the moment.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe findings of the
\n\ttrial Court are thus not required to be disturbed, however with
\n\tsome modification in sentence in respect of accused no.3. The
\n\tsubstantive sentence awarded to the accused No.3  – Parshottam Rama
\n\t( Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 1988 ) under Section 304
\n\tPart-I is reduced to the  period  already undergone. Except the
\n\tabove modification, rest of the judgment is maintained. The appeal
\n\tof the State being Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 1988 is dismissed in
\n\tentirely. The appeal of the accused being Criminal Appeal No. 132 of
\n\t1988 is allowed in part to the extent of sentence as indicated
\n\tabove. Bail Bonds are cancelled.  Registry is directed to send
\n\trecord & proceedings to the trial Court forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    [
\nBHAGWATI PRASAD, J ]<\/p>\n
                                                    [
\nS.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ]<\/p>\n
\/vgn<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Parshottam vs Unknown on 29 July, 2008 Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/132\/1988 6\/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 132 of 1988 With CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 447 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-97164","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nParshottam vs Unknown on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Parshottam vs Unknown on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-11T00:25:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Parshottam vs Unknown on 29 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-11T00:25:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1371,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Parshottam vs Unknown on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-11T00:25:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Parshottam vs Unknown on 29 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Parshottam vs Unknown on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Parshottam vs Unknown on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-11T00:25:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Parshottam vs Unknown on 29 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-11T00:25:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008"},"wordCount":1371,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008","name":"Parshottam vs Unknown on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-11T00:25:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parshottam-vs-unknown-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Parshottam vs Unknown on 29 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97164","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=97164"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97164\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}